Tinker AFB

[BoulderSooner]

They'd replace them with E-7 Wedgetails, though obviously it's no guarantee that Tinker would be home to the new aircraft. This was an interesting part of that article:



Seems like this is a move that needs to happen.

that quote is about moral is garbage

[Martin]

that quote is about moral is garbage

try to give people more to respond to than just a hot take... why do you think the section about morale is garbage?

[BoulderSooner]

try to give people more to respond to than just a hot take... why do you think the section about morale is garbage?

because i know

look do i think they talked to some one that said that sure with thousands of people you can find any opinion you want

[BrettM2]

Having been stationed at a unit with only TWO E-3s and seeing how useless those damned aircraft are, I can't imagine that's a garbage take. Those jets are always broke.

[jn1780]

Having been stationed at a unit with only TWO E-3s and seeing how useless those damned aircraft are, I can't imagine that's a garbage take. Those jets are always broke.

Are the E-3s more of a pain to maintain than the b-52's and B-1's? Those dinosaurs have been around for a long time.

I don't think people have to worry about Tinker, even if the base didn't get E-7 something will come to Tinker, especially with the new military spending surge that will probably come after this new cold war with Russia.

[PoliSciGuy]

Are the E-3s more of a pain to maintain than the b-52's and B-1's? Those dinosaurs have been around for a long time.

I don't think people have to worry about Tinker, even if the base didn't get E-7 something will come to Tinker, especially with the new military spending surge that will probably come after this new cold war with Russia.

And the base is already locked in as a main maintenance base for the new B-21 stealth bombers for the next 20+ years (thank you Senator Inhofe!). I can't wait to see those things flying overhead.

[OKC Guy]

It bears watching but the Tinker Navy uses the same basic platform (Boeing 707) as AF E-3. When Navy moved here the savings was part of reason. Not only consolidating Navy assets in one location but also they use same basic platform - and there were common airframe items - so there was savings in both Navy/AF using same 707 basic platform. Of course missions and everything else are different. Curious if any reduction or complete deletion of AF E-3 crosses over to Navy. Didn’t see this mentioned in article. Repair costs go up for Navy if they keep current 707 but likely would have more spare parts as well. Have not heard of maintenance problems with Navy assets either but theirs is newest models.

[PoliSciGuy]

The E-6's TACAMO mission is likely going to be replaced by C-130s and thus probably located closer to the coasts. The other Air Force plane that's derived from the 707 is the KC-135 tanker, which is already in the process of being phased out by the 767-based KC-46 (though this airframe has some pretty significant teething problems). So in a decade or so it would not be a surprise to see the E-3, E-6 and KC-135 all replaced by the Wedgetail, C-130 and KC-46. Given Tinker's maintenance history I doubt the base would be shuttered, but the number of squadrons based here may shrink.

[BrettM2]

Are the E-3s more of a pain to maintain than the b-52's and B-1's? Those dinosaurs have been around for a long time.

I don't think people have to worry about Tinker, even if the base didn't get E-7 something will come to Tinker, especially with the new military spending surge that will probably come after this new cold war with Russia.

I’m not an expert on maintenance, but those platforms have two big things in their favor: significant aircraft at the Boneyard for parts and (for the B-1, at least) much newer avionics suites. The E-3 is just old. Nothing quite works right.

[BoulderSooner]

I’m not an expert on maintenance, but those platforms have two big things in their favor: significant aircraft at the Boneyard for parts and (for the B-1, at least) much newer avionics suites. The E-3 is just old. Nothing quite works right.

E3 dragon mod (glass cockpit) is on going currently ..

[BrettM2]

E3 dragon mod (glass cockpit) is on going currently ..

I'm sure that will help a lot. All of their stuff is straight out of the 1960s and 1970s. Being such a small fleet made supply sustainability that much harder.

[BoulderSooner]

I'm sure that will help a lot. All of their stuff is straight out of the 1960s and 1970s. Being such a small fleet made supply sustainability that much harder.

some of it is some of it is not ... there have been several block upgrades in the last 30 years ...

really the sustainability issue is much larger at the Pacaf sites (they only have 2 tails each) then it is at tinker or even in the AOR

what should have happened is that the USAF should have bought the E767 (an E3 on a 767 airframe /what the JSDF (Japan self defense force ) bought) in the late 90's to replace the fleet instead of doing the mods that happend back then ..

wedgetail is coming and is likely coming soon .. but there is no reason to retire any E-3's until they are replaced by wedgetail

[jn1780]

Kind of wonder if our space-based capabilities are a lot better than the defense department lets on. You would think there would be some more urgency in finding a replacement?

[BoulderSooner]

Kind of wonder if our space-based capabilities are a lot better than the defense department lets on. You would think there would be some more urgency in finding a replacement?

they have already found the "replacement" it will be the E-7 wedgetail already in use with the Australian Air force and coming to the RAF (royal air force ) soon

[jedicurt]

Kind of wonder if our space-based capabilities are a lot better than the defense department lets on. You would think there would be some more urgency in finding a replacement?

the answer to that is yes and no... yes, our space-based capabilities are far better than the common person knows when it comes to this function, but cost and ability to adjust flight plans quickly to cover a new area or recover and area is where there is still a need. but our UAV program has caught up a lot in that category now. So is the need as great? no, but is there still a need for this type a aircraft? yes, just not as much as there was say even 10 years ago. It still fills a specific role, but the scope of that role has been shrinking.

[PoliSciGuy]

More info on the E-6 TACAMO replacement from the navy. As the article says, the new C-130 platform will only do the submarine leg of the mission and not the other, broader mission of networking all parts of America's nuclear triad. In other words, these new planes will supplement rather than replace the E-6, which means hopefully the squadron here at Tinker will remain active.

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zon...doomsday-plane

In one significant change from the E-6B that it’s replacing, the EC-130J TACAMO will, to begin with, at least, be designed for the TACAMO mission only. Currently, the Mercury fulfills both TACAMO duties for the Navy’s ballistic missile submarines, and the U.S. Air Force’s Airborne Command Post (ABNCP) mission, which involves maintaining communications with intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) and bomber units. Before the E-6B consolidated the two roles, the ballistic missile support mission was executed by the EC-135 Looking Glass.

With the EC-130J TACAMO initially only being responsible for TACAMO, the implication here is that the new aircraft will be supplemental to the existing E-6B fleet, at least for some amount of time.

Full retirement of the E-6Bs would then require a substitute for the ABNCP mission, perhaps through further adapting the EC-130Js or fielding a new platform altogether. The latter might even signal that the ABNCP mission is handed over from the Navy to the Air Force.

[Plutonic Panda]

The project to close Douglas and expand the base is moving forward as a relocation for the public water lines will soon be getting underway with a $35 million funding grant:

$35 million for waterline relocation at Tinker Air Force Base

Officials say a 60-inch waterline that serves approximately 400,000 residents and currently runs parallel to Douglas Boulevard from Lake Stanley Draper must be relocated due to the pending closure of a two-mile section of Douglas as part of Tinker’s expansion to the east. The waterline relocation will start at S.E. 74th St. and wind its way north to S.E. 44th St. Once completed, the waterline will be entirely outside of Tinker’s secured area.

- https://www.velocityokc.com/blog/pol...ack=super_blog

[bombermwc]

This sooooo sucks.

[HangryHippo]

This sooooo sucks.

Why?

[Plutonic Panda]

Why?

It’d be nice if they could build a road tunnel but I know the traffic counts likely don’t warrant it. Still tunnels are cool.

[BoulderSooner]

It’d be nice if they could build a road tunnel but I know the traffic counts likely don’t warrant it. Still tunnels are cool.

it would also be a very expensive tunnel as it would need to support aircraft ..

[Plutonic Panda]

it would also be a very expensive tunnel as it would need to support aircraft ..

Right which is why it won’t happen anytime soon. It would probably need to be built to somehow provide security for the base as well making it even more expensive. Are there any examples of road tunnels under US military bases?

I know such tunnels exists under civilian airports but not military.

[LakeEffect]

Right which is why it won’t happen anytime soon. It would probably need to be built to somehow provide security for the base as well making it even more expensive. Are there any examples of road tunnels under US military bases?

I know such tunnels exists under civilian airports but not military.

And won't ever happen, at least here. The tunnel would need to be nearly 2 miles long. Far too much of a risk to security to have a tunnel that long, or any tunnel, go under a military taxiway.

[HFAA Alum]

Right which is why it won’t happen anytime soon. It would probably need to be built to somehow provide security for the base as well making it even more expensive. Are there any examples of road tunnels under US military bases?

I know such tunnels exists under civilian airports but not military.

My good sir, allow me to point you in the direction of VIRGINIA, where they build nothing but tunnels and the highest building they have in the state is 508 ft tall. They do NOT build bridges with a tower clearance higher than 400 feet due to the sheer amount of air traffic that goes on around the state. And we're talking about combat jets and helicopters making routine flyovers rivaling that of the tornado siren system test every Saturday at noon. They prioritize military above all else because of it's location to the nation's capital.

But there are some places where they tunnel INTO the bases there, and that's mainly because there's a runway above it. My dad worked on some of the bases there during his time in the navy, and he currently has clearance to work on some of the bases because of his engineering skills. That said, I've been to a number of those bases when I was 14. The one that stands out is none other than the passage of I-564, specifically going under the runway of Chambers Field NS of Norfolk. Each side of that stretch of interstate is lined in barbed wire fencing, and it sinks into the ground underneath a runway, comes back up, drops you off at the base checkpoint a little further up north. Here's a few examples of it here.






So yeah, they do have them, but they aren't exactly award-winning designs.

[Plutonic Panda]

^^^ thanks for that example. Haven’t made it up to the NE yet. I do know Virginia is no stranger to tunnels and glad to hear they can do it. Maybe one day they can tunnel Douglas if it ever needs it.